Dismissed

Hitesh Kumar Vaishnav v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur

Rajasthan HC25 Jul 2022CW/975/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged their exclusion from a government recruitment drive for stenographers on grounds they had valid OBC caste certificates and notified status. The High Court rejected their claims, ruling that eligibility depends on status as per the affirmative date.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners were denied appointment to the advertised posts and the writ petitions were dismissed.

Hitesh Kumar Vaishnav Vs High Court of Judicature… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 975/2022

¶4

Hitesh Kumar Vaishnav S/o Shri Shyam Das, Aged About 24 Years, By Caste Vaishnav, R/o Rana Chowk, Reodar, District Sirohi. ----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar General.

¶7

The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. ----Respondents

¶8

Connected With

¶9

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1214/2022

¶10

Manisha Bishnoi D/o Shri Ganga Ram, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Village Sewari, Tehsil Bagora, District Jalore. ----Petitioner

¶11

Versus

¶12

High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar General.

¶13

The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. ----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Rakesh Arora
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Aniket Tater on behalf of
		Mr. ManojBhandari,Senior Advocate

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order

¶16

25/07/2022

¶17

The respondent No.1 issued an advertisement dated 18.01.2020 inviting applications to the post of Stenographers, Grade-III (Hindi & English) for District Courts, District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) and Permanent Lok Adalats (PLAs). The last date for submission of the application forms was 30.01.2020.

¶18

The petitioners submitted application forms pursuant to the advertisement for the post of Stenographers (Hindi) as OBC (NCL)

¶19

(2 of 4)

¶20

[CW-975/2022]

¶21

candidates. The written examinations were held from 03.04.2021 to 07.04.2021. The result of written examinations was declared by the respondent on 30.06.2021. On qualifying the written examination, petitioners were called for interview on 11.11.2021. The interview call letter dated 30.10.2021 directed the candidates to bring with them certain documents in original for verification.

¶22

Serial number 1 of the list of documents reads as follows:

¶23

“Certificate required for seeking reservation in any of the categories - SC/ST/OBC/MBC/EWS of Rajasthan. OBC/MBC (Non Creamy Layer) Certificate must not have been issued prior to one year from the last date of submission of the application form.”

¶24

Empasis supplied

¶25

The petitioners appeared for the interview without possessing requisite OBC (NCL) certificate. The respondents allowed them 7 days’ time to cure the deficiencies. The petitioners, thereafter submitted affidavits within allowed 7 days’ time affirming that they belonged to the OBC (NCL) category. The respondents, on 15.12.2021 declared a list of candidates recommended for appointment with respective roll numbers and category. The petitioners’ names were not included in the list as they failed to submit requisite OBC (NCL) certificate by the last date of submission of application form. Whereupon, they have approached this Court through these writ petitions.

¶26

Learned counsel Shri Arora submitted that denial of appointment to the petitioners on the advertised posts solely on the ground that the petitioners had failed to produce the OBC (NCL) certificate of one year prior to the last date of submission of application forms is illegal, arbitrary and unjust. The Advertisement dated 18.01.2020 was devoid of the condition that

¶27

(3 of 4)

¶28

[CW-975/2022]

¶29

OBC (NCL) certificate produced should have been issued one year prior to the last date of submission of the application form. It is further submitted that the petitioners had submitted the OBC (NCL) certificate along with affidavits deposing that they are eligible for reservation in OBC (NCL) category as per the notifications dated 17.08.1993 and 28.09.1993 issued by the State government. The learned counsel for the petitioners urged that respondents be directed to recommend petitioners’ names for appointment on the advertised posts along with consequential benefits.

¶30

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the OBC (NCL) certificates submitted by the petitioners were not in conformity with the condition stipulated in the interview call letter dated 30.10.2021. The petitioners failed to produce OBC (NCL) certificate issued within one year from the last date of submission of the application form. The counsel apprised the court that the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of Rajasthan has issued a Circular No.45955 dated 08.08.2019 which validates an OBC (NCL) certificate up to three years from the date of its issuance upon submission of affidavit by the candidate concerned. However, the affidavits submitted by the petitioners are of no consequence as they do not fulfill the requirement of caste certificate, to justify the status of petitioners as OBC (NCL) candidates. He prayed that the writ petitions may be dismissed with costs.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶32

(4 of 4) [CW-975/2022]

¶33

In the instant case, OBC (NCL) certificates dated 09.06.2015, 14.10.2020 and 22.06.2021 were submitted by Petitioner-Hitesh Kumar Vaishnav (Civil Writ Petition No.975/2022) and dated 07.05.2021 was submitted by Petitioner-Manisha Bishnoi (Civil Writ Petition No.1214/2022) which did not satisfy the caste criterion stated in the call letter for OBC (NCL) Certificate. The condition mentioned in the interview call letters dated 30.10.2021 is completely just as financial status (creamy layer/non creamy layer) changes from year to year due to revision of income criteria. It is a settled proposition of law that candidature and eligibility of an incumbent is required to be decided as on the date of advertisement/last date for submission of the applications unless otherwise stipulated. The Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India , reported in (2007)3 SCC 956 held that if the Rules and the recruitment notification are silent, the last date for considering the qualification would be the last date for submission of the application forms. This court in case of Vinod Kumar Dhaker v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. S.A.W. No. 509/2022) decided on 06.07.2022 while dealing with such stipulations in recruitment notification held that the primary purpose which these stipulations serve is enabling the selecting body to identify the number of candidates constituting the field of eligibility.

¶34

For the reasons aforementioned, this Court does not find any merit in these petitions, therefore both are dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶35

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶36

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶37

76-77-KshamaD/-

Hitesh Kumar Vaishnav v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hitesh Kumar Vaishnav v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govind Swami Vs State of Rajasthan

Sant Shri Asharamji Bapu Vs State and Ors.

Directorate of Secondary Education Vs Deveshwar Nath Sharma

Chamna Vs State of Rajasthan

Manisha Bishnoi Vs High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur

Jetha Ram Vs State of Rajasthan